Expert Questions Mutharika’s Decision on Cabinet Leadership
By Aaron Dube………
Constitutional law expert Seodi White has questioned President Peter Mutharika’s decision to allow Second Vice-President Enoch Chihana to chair a Cabinet meeting while First Vice-President Jane Ansah was reportedly available.
White argues that the decision may have breached Section 92(3) of the Constitution, which outlines the order of authority for presiding over Cabinet meetings.
The issue has sparked debate over the limits of presidential powers and whether executive delegation can override constitutional procedures.
According to White, the Constitution establishes a clear hierarchy for Cabinet leadership, with the President chairing meetings, followed by the First Vice-President in the President’s absence, and the Second Vice-President only when both are unavailable.
She contends that while the President has broad executive powers, those powers must be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and cannot be used to alter constitutionally assigned responsibilities.
White further argues that Vice-Presidents are full constitutional members of Cabinet under Section 92(1), and their roles cannot be changed through administrative decisions or political arrangements.
Addressing the President’s delegation powers under Section 89(6), White says the provision allows the President to delegate certain duties but does not permit him to override specific constitutional requirements governing Cabinet leadership.
She cites the legal principle lex specialis derogat legi generali, which holds that a specific legal provision takes precedence over a general one. In her view, Section 92(3), which specifically governs who chairs Cabinet meetings, prevails over the broader delegation powers contained in Section 89(6).
White warns that allowing the President to bypass the First Vice-President through delegation would undermine the constitutional order and weaken safeguards designed to regulate executive authority.
She maintains that constitutional offices and responsibilities can only be altered through formal constitutional amendment, not by administrative decisions or political convenience.
Her analysis is based on several constitutional provisions, including Sections 79, 80(5), 86(3), 87, 89(6) and 92(1)-(3), which she says must be read together to define the limits of presidential authority and the constitutional responsibilities of Vice-Presidents.
The debate has reignited discussion over the balance between presidential discretion and constitutional supremacy, with White insisting that all public officials, including the President, must exercise their powers strictly within the Constitution.
